Hello, RealDealBillMcNeal, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Mats Møller Dæhli. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
Great work on the Brimstone article. However I did remove the prod. While the article certainly reeked of puffery, I do think it meets the minimum notability requirements. Not the mention the fact it has survived two previous AfDs. In the very least I think it should go through the AfD process again if it is to be deleted.LM2000 (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brimstone (again)
I've started a sockpuppet investigation against the two who are reverting you. Their behavior is identical and leads me to believe they are the same person. If you have additional comments, leave them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RingWars2007. If I were you I wouldn't revert them again until the investigation is closed so that way you cannot be blamed for the edit war.LM2000 (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Greetings.[reply]
Per all of this I thought I should tell you that there's a guideline article on this such behaviour. see this. I've suggested that the two be disciplined per this guideline if the SPI against them does not lead to blocks.
Instead of making less-than-helpful comments like "jog on", I suggest you give us some indication of why a footballer's initiation ceremony is at all encyclopaedic. All football clubs do it (or at least did it back in the day), so what's the big deal about David Beckham's? Is it just because it's him? I'm finding it difficult to justify including this info. – PeeJay23:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Peejay there is plenty of sources available in regards to David Beckham's initiation ceremony. Many soccer players have gone through this and so it's no big deal that David did as well. I see no reason why it shouldnt be included in the article. Like I said there are many sources for it so I have to agree with RealDeal and his edits. Cadencool15:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've basically just agreed with me. Many/most footballers do initiation ceremonies, so what's so special about this one? Granted this sounds like one of the more extreme ones, but I would be surprised if worse stuff had been done to other players and never gone reported in the media. This is pure tabloid bunkum. – PeeJay17:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, before you force this into a massive edit war, let's have a proper discussion about the inclusion of the content. Per WP:BRD, the info should not be added again until the discussion reaches a conclusion. – PeeJay17:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure doing something embarrassing like masturbating in public was pretty common back in the early 1990s. At my American football initiation in university, we made the rookies stand naked in a field while we pelted eggs at them. Sounds pretty similar. – PeeJay18:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I've wrote the article about UEFA Champions League hat-tricks in Ukrainian Wiki. When I was writting it, I found that Rodionov didn't make a hat-trick (UEFA.com shows it). On the other hand Semak in 2004/2005 season scored 3 goals in one match →[1]. I hope it will help you.--TnoXX (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good explanation of what constitutes vandalism. Great stuff to threaten somebody with being blocked rather than educate them. Superb work by a "veteran editor". RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those are fair warnings by User:Lady Lotus. In no way are "Everybody had jelly and ice-cream."[2] and "In 2014, Malcolm Glazer died much to the delight of Manchester United fans, who proceded to celebrate with jelly and ice-cream."[3], the latter referenced with a blog, encyclopedic-worthy. Especially after you have removed stuff that you considered "crap" and "awful". This edit just a month back is far from acceptable by an editor either. LRD NO (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mr T Loves his mother, brother, there's no point in denying it. Making incorrect edits with regards to fan reaction does not equate to vandalism. Unencyclopaedic it may have been, but it's not too difficult to press a button to simply revert the edit rather than to threaten somebody with a ban from editing, without making any attempt whatsoever to explain the threat. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deliberately making incorrect edits is vandalism. To quote VANDAL: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". Which you have undoubtedly done in the examples cited above and, for another example, here.
It's possible you're going to respond to this by further lawyering. Well, ok, lawyer away. But don't indulge in disruptive editing again. It won't end well for you. --VeryCrocker (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those edits are clear-as-day vandalism. Bring it to any editor and they will say the same. If you think any disruptive editing can be defended with "press a button to simply revert the edit", my advice is to stay away from editing for a while and look at WP policies to see how they work before getting yourself into further trouble and a likely block. LRD NO (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a list collating the entire library of singles released to Itunes is an indiscriminate collection of information which Wikipedia is not. None of these songs has ever charted apart from Fandango's theme in the UK. Just because these songs has been released, doesn't mean it is encyclopaedic. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it didn't take me three years to do it. I removed the text the first time I encountered the page. There was an article for a wrestler called Brimstone that went untouched for years before I removed the large amounts of guff and it finally got deleted. Length of time is not an argument. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's say the article is left alone the way you have it. How is anyone supposed to keep track of what's out there wrestling theme wise? We cannot access iTunes 24/7/365 to keep track, that's physically impossible. How do you suppose we fix this problem? Evil Yugi (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you a few - WP:IAR, Lists of songs, and Category:Discographies. Now if need be this list can be moved to Category:Record_label_discographies and it can survive there along with the other few thousand listings of that sort. ArcAngel (talk) ) 16:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR is used in instances where the rules are preventing improvement. How is a huge list of songs released by a record label an improvement? Lists of songs features zero lists by record labels. WWE Music Group is a record label, not an artist. If you want to create a page that would be included in Category:Record_label_discographies called "WWE Music Group discography", sure go ahead. But come on, this list blatantly doesn't belong in the main article. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Awarded to RealDealBillMcNeal - instead of going back and forth, I decided to use a hybrid of both your and my version of the disputed edit. This award is a show of good faith and represents that your idea had merit enough to be used after further review. Vjmlhds(talk)18:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A reminder that another editor and you have been engaging in edit-warring on both pages, and that such actions could result in a block. Please try to reach consensus with each other on the article talk page before it escalates into administrator action. Thank you. LRD NO (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Edit-war where I continually try to improve it, with references, and the edits get reverted with terrible reasoning. One way war where I yet again get blamed. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 04:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When this happens seek out more community input rather than repeatedly reverting. Even if you think the reasoning is terrible.
Our edit warring policy defines a revert as "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". Notice the "whole or in part" in there.
It seems you do not accept this definition and it has been brought up in at least 1 of your prior 3 edit warring blocks. Please seek further community input when you cannot come to an agreement with someone rather than reverting their edits in whole or in part. Chillum04:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst you and the other editor are both clearly edit warring, edits such as this appear petty and not in your favour. Please discuss this on the article in questions talk page before making further reverts. This is an encyclopaedia and not a play thing. Any further reverts may lead to a report and another block which I'm sure you don't want.BletheringScot01:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it an edit-war if both sides come to the same agreement, no matter how ludicrous or preposterous or asinine i.e. everything that happens in football is a "quirk of timing"? This is the consensus that was reached following the BRD cycle. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus was that everything that happens in football is a "quirk of timing". This was his opinion on everything and I agreed. There is no flaw, that is consensus. That's how it works when only two people are commenting on the matter, presumably. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stop your vandalism during deletion suggestion process
Those sources are clearly about the thing that made her famous. If the section detailing the thing that made her famous is removed, then so should the sources. Stop being such a presumptuous arse. This, and the thing where you accused somebody of RACISM. Get a grip. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your protection request
Hello RealDealBillMcNeal. Please see my closure here. I've seen problems with intraday updates of scores before, but you need to have a consensus from somewhere. You can't just tell people what to do in the hidden text of the article and then assume it will be obeyed. At least put something on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You do some good edits, and then you go and create an article like this. You've been warned before for your vandalism - please consider this a final warning. If I see anything like that again you will be indefinitely blocked from editing. GiantSnowman07:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's his nickname; I've literally just given you three reliable sources, including his own club's official Twitter account, which all confirm that it is his nickname. It's not vandalism, at worst it's a very minor inconvenience. Bore off. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not reading every single Wikipedia guideline to discover whether or not a nickname could be used as a redirect. Thanks for your help with the matter! Glad you could be of service to me in this massively important situation! It's not like you couldn't have just deleted the article and said "please don't create this article, it simply isn't necessary", no, you had to accuse me of vandalism and threaten me with a ban! Absolutely ludicrous. Such weirdly aggressive behaviour. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I noticed this on the watchlists of Mr. McNeal, @LRD NO: and @GiantSnowman:, I thought I would give my 2 cents.
My first instinct was to agree with GS as it seemed the reasonable point of view. However when I read up on Wikipedia:Redirect#Neutrality_of_redirects it specifically mentions that it is appropriate to redirect a non-neutral title for an article if it has several media mentions:
In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term.
and
The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy.
It goes on to say:
The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3.
I don't think this is an obvious case. What needs to be determined is if this nickname is established and likely to be useful. My personal opinion given the sources and the results of a google search is that people may look for the article by that name.
It does seem that Bill is trying to test the limits of what is acceptable. I think you are within your discretion here. Chillum18:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects should be limited to commonly-used names such as footballing names or the typical first/last names. Mention of a nickname, particularly those of a disparaging, over a line or two should not justify a redirect.
We do not want a situation where we encourage editors to use inappropriate nicknames to the downright ridiculous as redirects, such as:
This is an encyclopedia. We do not want to lend credence to inappropriate search terms that suggest, for example, that Stuart Pearce is psychotic or Leighton Baines is 'naughty' to the average reader. LRD12:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GiantSnowman his edit wasn't vandalism. As you know, Wikipedia has a definition of Vandalism, and his edit didn't meet that definition, so please strike that. (Also note, you don't seem to have anyone else that supports your claim of Vandalism either). Second, he has references supporting his edit (Yes, I know twitter is not a reliable source, I meant the other two sources :) ) so it's not fan cruft nor is it someone with an axe to grind. Just calm down, talk it out, and don't threaten with blocks, this isn't a block worthy offense (check my block log, I know a thing or two about being blocked. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti16:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
UEFA Champions Leauge all-time top scorers tables
Why have you decided to make such a drastic change by deleting one of the tables without discussing it in the talk page first? You even removed the "including/excluding qualifying rounds" line so visitors won't even know whether it includes goals scored in those rounds or not. Feudonym (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's the right change to make. There is no need for two inconsistent tables, and there is no need to include goals in qualifiers. The hint is in the name qualifiers - they aren't part of the actual tournament. One table detailing the all time top 10 goalscorers with a link to the main page is blatantly enough. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Names are often used as article titles - such as the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article. However, some topics have multiple names, and this can cause disputes as to which name should be used in the article's title. Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural. This is often referred to using the Wikipedia short cut term: "COMMONNAME".
Which is why we have page names such as San Siro (instead of Stadio Giuseppe Meazza), Red Star Belgrade (FK Crvena Zvezda) and Sporting Lisbon (Sporting Clube de Portugal), which has been used in the English media such as the BBC, The Guardian, ESPN FC and The Telegraph. LRD02:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The page name actually isn't Sporting Lisbon, it's Sporting Clube de Portugal ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Also, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA states that consistency is one of the five components of a good article title (specifically that "the title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles"). RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both Sporting CP, Sporting and Sporting Lisbon are accepted naming variations of the same club, and none should be deleted without due reason. Same way that the English media refer to Bayern München as Bayern Munich, and Internazionale as Inter Milan, and synonyms are bolded in the OPENPARA per MOS:BOLD. Consistency in WP:NAMING CRITERIA applies in the use of F.C./FC and equivalent in football club pages. LRD05:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moving articles
Hi RealDeal, could you in the future not resort to "uncontroversial technical requests" for moving wrestler articles which could be disputed (such as Sami Zayn) - please use a full requested move discussion so others can weigh in on the subject. "Uncontroversial technical requests" are usually for articles with mistakes in their titles. Moving between ring names is disputable and this controversial. starship.paint ~¡Olé!00:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Google Search counts can be inflated. There are arguments for using El Generico, longevity of nine to ten years, international exposure in Japan including winning the top title in DDT as well as in Germany including winning the top title in wXw, has appeared on television via Ring of Honor, Evolve, and Dragon Gate Japan. In the end these values might be inferior to Sami Zayn, but to move the page without discussion is just dismissing them as trivial when not everyone might think so. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. starship.paint ~¡Olé!14:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All sources I've seen have called Rock and Roman "cousins", "blood brother" could mean either but I took it for granted that there was some blood relation considering how hyped up the relations between the Anoais seems to be. I'll leave it up to you guys to figure out who is right for sure until I come across a source which is more specific but it seems that you are correct.LM2000 (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that you are now subject to a community sanction
The following sanction has been imposed on you:
You have been indefinitely topic banned from History of WWE and related pages page banned from History of WWE and its talkpage.
You have been sanctioned for persistent disruptive editing and edit warring.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator as authorised by the community's decision at this and thisWP:ANI thread, and the procedure described by the general sanctions guidelines. Please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction at the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk13:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the topic ban clearly includes related pages - you have edited two WWE-related pages since the topic ban, and both of those can be very clearly related to the History of WWE page. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)20:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I say again, use your brain, chief. If you think my edits are disruptive, I implore you to go ahead and be a bad, bad grass. Otherwise, please just simmer down and relax. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You edited an article about a historic winning streak and a list of people who have been part of the WWE - clearly both are linked to the History of the WWE, so both edits were pretty clear violations of the topic ban. Other people are active on those articles. That's all that needs to be said. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)21:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, RealDealBillMcNeal. I meant your topic ban to apply to the page History of WWE and other pages closely connected to it, such as Talk:History of WWE and material specifically about the history of WWE on other pages. I don't think the people who supported the ban meant it to be wider than that, and I didn't either, because that was where the problems were. Lukeno94, thank you, the way the ban was phrased you were right to warn RDBMN; but I think I was wrong to make it so wide and vague, and I'm changing the scope of it to a page ban. I don't want either of the users involved to be unsure about editing wrestling articles generally, even if those articles do mention WWE (apparently wrestling articles tend to do that). See the modification I've made in the template above. I'll put a note to the same effect on User:Rebelrick123's page. If either of the users should cause problems on other wrestling pages, they can be taken back to ANI. Happy editing, RDBMN, and remember you can appeal the page ban. An appeal after six months of reasonably blameless editing elsewhere will usually be looked on favorably. Bishonen | talk08:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Bru
You may have found your edit funny but it wasn't referenced in any shape, nor have I found anything that does reference it. Of course, you could prove me wrong, but if you can't, stop making test edits on Wikipedia, you know the rest... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Warning
You are not allowed to re-prod an article once the PROD tag has been removed. It has now been removed twice and you've restored it twice. With your blatant disregard to policy and inappropriate attitude (aka "incivility") you are now being warned that any further disruption (1 edit) will result in a block. If you still wish for the article to be deleted, since the PROD was declined (twice) you may pursue AFD. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
PS: This includes edit warring and incivility on other pages (including but not limited to Ryan Giggs). Reviewing your recent contribs I see you're creating several issues around the wiki with your actions and it needs to stop now. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you have failed to heed my warnings and instead decided to laugh them off above, you have been blocked for disruptive editing. The recent disruption you have been causing (since the above warning and your reply) includes but is not limited to:
Incivility issues and/or comments that are simply intended to inflame situations or are otherwise simply rude.
Several of your inappropriate comments have been contained in edit summaries. Please note that certain items really should be avoided in edit summaries. While not all are required, incivility, personal attacks and/or accusations against other editors have no place anywhere on Wikipedia - let alone in an edit summary.
A review of your block log indicates a troubling trend. Once your block expires please start taking into consideration the behaviors that are causing you to be repeatedly blocked. If you simply correct the issues described you (and everybody you interact with) would have a more positive and pleasant experience on Wikipedia.
In accordance with the blocking policy and taking into consideration the previous issues which have caused you to be blocked, your (thus far) complete disregard of warnings and wide area of problem editing, I have blocked you for a one-month period. If you wish to appeal the block you may do so in several ways, including adding {{unblock|Your reason goes here}} to this page.
You have the potential to (continue to) be a great asset to content within your area of interest. We just have to get these issues under control for the sake of a peaceful editing atmosphere. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
No edit warring occurred on any of the listed pages, there was no attempt at owning any of the pages, describing The Sun as a terrible source is hardly banworthy, laughing at somebody describing me as incivil is not blockworthy. To summarise, this is absolute nonsense.
Decline reason:
You do appear to be still edit warring over several pages. Just because you space it out over a few days and several pages does not stop it from being edit warring.
You are being belligerent in your edit summaries as you have been in the past. Your tendency to tell people you are "laughing" at them is certainly rude as is asking them to "pipe down".
I see no reason why this unblock request should be granted considering you still do not see why your behaviour was wrong. This is an ongoing pattern with you and you can expect blocks for the same behaviour to increase in duration. Chillum23:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Nice of you to highlight where the edit wars were. Oh right. Use of the word lol as part of an edit summary to laugh AT somebody has occurred a grand total of twice in my last 500 edits, which works out as 0.004%. Once has the words "pipe down" been used in that time. Definitely tendencies, though, definitely. And that's a 100%er. Definitely a "pattern". Great administration, chief, just outstanding. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Luis Suárez racial abuse incident shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Changes were made to remove content that violates WT:NPOV and WP:COI. Also do not remove the tags at the top that show evidence of this remains. I can see from your history you have previously been blocked by previously been blocked by HighInBC for edit warring over this same article.--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This user appears to have some sort of agenda concerning the factual information contained within this article. Every single sentence he removed is sourced to highly regarded media sources, and yet he claims there is a conflict of interest and a personal opinion in my editing. These accusations are unsettling and insulting. Can you provide assistance as to how this should be dealt with. As the user rightly points out, I have been blocked from editing on a number of occasions, and obviously this is something I want to avoid. But he is blatantly lying as I have never been blocked regarding this article. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no agenda. Also I did not say you have violated the three-revert rule, but that three reverts in 24hr's will violate it. I initially missed your revert posted on the 30th September but there are three reverts dating back to last week of the same information. The edit has removed sections names that violate WT:NPOV like Continued denial of guilt and ...refused handshake and removed some lopsided sources you've added and excessive information that have no bearing on the article. You have continually reverted these edits to push your own agenda. Additionally for edit-warring, you have been blocked regarding this article. Proof is above and restated here: As you have failed to heed my warnings and instead decided to laugh them off above, you have been blocked for disruptive editing. The recent disruption you have been causing (since the above warning and your reply) includes but is not limited to: Edit-warring and ownership issues on several pages including Undefeated WrestleMania streak of The Undertaker, Andy Cole and Luis Suárez racial abuse incident--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced sentences are not my point of view. Suarez literally wrote a book in which he denied any guilt. This is not my point of view, it is the reality of the situation which has been sourced to highly reputable sources. The handshake was widely reported via dozens upon dozens of sources to be refused by Suarez; again, this is not my point of view, this is sourced reality. Lopsided sources...? I.e. they weigh heavily against Luis Suarez in reporting the facts of the incident. Still waiting for something approaching a reasoned argument, and if you do not the information will be put back into the article. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My personal support has no relevance here. Maintaining a NPOV is all that does. Also the section title in itself implies negativity and clearly violates WP:NDESC(These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation implies wrongdoing, and so should be avoided in a descriptive title.) If we cannot come to consensus though, then as HighInBC suggested please request a dispute resolution. Thanks.--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal support of Liverpool has no relevance to a Liverpool footballer being found guilty of racial abuse, and you subsequently removing vast amounts of information from the Wikipedia article about it, it has nothing whatsoever to do with that, aye. Definitely neutral here, aren't you. You've still not provided anything resembling a valid explanation for the vast removal of content you have executed. "Allegation implies wrongdoing" - he was found guilty of racially abusing Patrice Evra, he admitted using the word of which he was accused of using, ergo it's not an allegation. I can't imagine why an article about somebody racially abusing a fellow professional would make use of some negative words. Mindboggling stuff there. You haven't remotely attempted to reach a consensus, you have threatened me with a block for something I have not done, you have attempted character assassination, you have not offered any decent explanation for any of your actions, nor an apology for repeatedly insulting me. Go away please and discuss it on the talk page of the article itself. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In a content dispute I am not going to determine who is right and who is wrong, rather it is my job to make sure no disruptive behaviour gets in the way of the productive discussion. My advice is to seek more opinions, make your argument, and then abide by whatever consensus forms. HighInBC20:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cut the crap with your disruptive editing on WWE Studios. Nobody dosen't want to hear your excuses. Don't you get it. Maryse was released from the company in 2011 and no longer active with the company plus Santa's Little Helper was made years after her release. Yes she's in it but WWE only promotes current superstars who were present during production of the film they starred in. So for the last time, Miz and Paige are the ones that are promoted in the film not Miz, Paige and Maryse. If you keep doing this, you may be blocked from editing.72.64.207.76 (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it matter who WWE promotes? The column is titled "wrestlers", and Maryse fits in this category. If you keep threatening to block me from editing, I will report you. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not move the page Marians Pahars to Marian Pahars. This was already discussed on his talk page and a consensus was reached following a vote. 'Marians' is his legal given name and the name he himself uses. He is a Latvian citizen, living and working in Latvia and his name should reflect the accurate spelling; not a truncated version created by the press. Anyone searching for 'Marian Pahars' will still be directed to the correct page. Thanks! ExRat (talk) 04:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, RealDealBillMcNeal. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luis Suárez controversies (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AIRcorn(talk)08:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
